Christianity Has A Problematic Idea At Its Core

Published in

Deconstructing Christianity

15 min readJul 22, 2023

Christianity is the most widely practiced religion in the world. Christian teachings majorly revolve around faith, love, compassion, and humility. I know all of this does not sound problematic at all, and I agree. I am not here to generalize the whole Christian tradition into one thing or to paint all Christians as villains. I am here to point out a potentially dangerous aspect of Christianity that lies at its core.

Context

To explain my point, let’s look at a very popular tragedy from 2018.

A 26-year-old American adventure blogger was killed by an isolated tribe on the Indian North Sentinel Island. How? Why? Let’s try to understand this.

Again, I am not trying to paint this man as the sole villain of this story. In my view, he was probably a very nice guy, and that’s part of the problem. When insane people do crazy things, that is dangerous, but when sane people do crazy things, then we need to seriously reevaluate some things. How does a sane, young, capable man chooses such a demise? This did not happen overnight.

This event has its roots in first and second-century Christian traditions. The idea of evangelism is responsible for many major conflicts between Christianity and other traditions. It’s probably also the cause of Christianity’s rapid spread.

And no, I am not explicitly targeting evangelical Christians. Evangelism is an idea present to some degree in many denominations. I am using the words mission and evangelism interchangeably. Let’s not get into the semantics. The idea here is common.

Some Christians try to tone down the problem by saying evangelism in itself is not wrong, but sometimes the method of evangelism can be wrong. Don’t fall for this, it could be a bait and switch, or they have something else in their mind.

I am here to argue that the idea of evangelism in the context of religion with Christian assumptions is inherently wrong whether it is done forcefully or not. Before moving further, let’s look into the tragedy I discussed earlier for those unaware.

The following text is taken from Wikipedia:

John Allen Chau was born on December 18, 1991, in Scottsboro, Alabama, the third and youngest child of Lynda Adams-Chau, an organizer for Chi Alpha, and Patrick Chau, a Chinese-American psychiatrist who left China during the Cultural Revolution. Throughout his childhood, Chau loved camping, hiking and travelling, and excelled at various club, charity and other extracurricular activities. He admired numerous explorers and missionaries including David Livingstone and Bruce Olson.
He attended Oral Roberts University in Oklahoma, where he managed the university soccer team, and graduated cum laude in 2014 with a B.S. in Exercise Science.
Prior to 2018, Chau had participated in missionary trips to Mexico, South Africa and Iraqi Kurdistan. He first traveled to the Andaman Islands in 2015 and 2016 as part of his missionary trips, but did not visit North Sentinel Island at that time.

According to the website of ‘All Nation’, the organization Chau was working with, Chau prepared for 9 years to go to North Sentinel Island. According to them, Chau is a martyr who selflessly gave his life for Christ. We don’t have to take their word for it. We have Chau’s journal itself to describe why he did what he did.

If you read the journal written by Chau, it progressively becomes worse. In the diary entry of 14th November 2018, Chau briefly summarizes all the preparations he has been doing. That includes being in quarantine, arrangements with fishermen to drop him off at the island, plans of maneuvers to avoid detection from the Indian Coast Guard (It is illegal to go to that island), his language gap in communicating with the locals, gifts to give the Sentinelese, and how grateful he is that God has given him this opportunity.

Thank you Father for using me, for shaping me and molding me to be your ambassador. Please continue to keep all of us involved hidden from the physical and spiritual forces who desire to keep the people here in darkness. Holy Spirit please open the hearts of the tribe to receive me and by receiving me, to receive You. May Your Kingdom, Your Rule and Reign come now to North Sentinel Island. My life is in Your hands, O Father, so into Your hands I commit my spirit. ~ John Allen Chau

The next day Chau landed on the North Sentinel Island. He also got injured by sharp dead coral. His first encounter with the Sentinelese didn’t go very well. The Sentinelese came rushing to him with weapons. Chau shouted to them, “My name is John. I love you and Jesus loves you. Jesus Christ gave me the authority to come to you. Here is some fish!” and threw some fish towards them. That didn’t help, and Chau had to retreat.

His second encounter didn’t go well either. This time he almost got shot by an arrow. But this time, the interaction was much longer. He lost many of his items, including his passport.

By the end of his journal, Chau accepted that he may never return alive. He describes the Island as “Satan’s last stronghold”, and in the end, he writes as follows:

You guys might think I’m crazy in all this but I think it’s worth it to declare Jesus to these people. Please do not be angry at them or at God if I get killed — rather please live your lives in obedience to whatever He has called you to and I’ll see you again when you pass through the veil. Don’t retrieve my body. This is not a pointless thing — the eternal lives of this tribe is at hand and I can’t wait to see them around the throne of God worshipping in their own language as Revelation 7:9–10 states. I love you all and I pray that none of you love anything in this world more than Jesus Christ

He then gave his journal to the fishermen to be returned to his friends and families and returned to the Island, never to be seen again. But fishermen report that the next day they saw someone getting buried by the Sentinelese on shore.

What to take out from this story? As some Christian missionaries suggest, is Chau a martyr, or is he a dumb individual who got himself killed, as one Twitter user wrote.

John Allen Chau is not a martyr. Just a dumb American who thought the tribals needed ‘Jesus’ when the tribals already lived in harmony with God and nature for years without outside interference. Stupidity cannot be considered to be martyrdom.

I would say he is a victim. Chau’s father, Dr. Patrick Chau, blamed “extreme Christianity” for pushing his son to such an end. “If you have [anything] positive to say about religion,” he said, “l wish not to see or hear.”

Keeping this story in mind, I will give four reasons why I find the idea of Christian evangelism problematic.

1. It’s arrogant and intolerant of other people’s beliefs.

In his diary, Chau described the Island as “Satan’s last stronghold”. What does he mean? As a former Christian believer, I can see where he is coming from.

North Sentinel Island is one of the last places on Earth still isolated from global interaction. As such, it is also one of the last places on Earth still unaware of Christian theology. That’s what Chau is trying to say by his statement.

You might ask why having the knowledge of Christian theology is so important. I will explain that in point 3. For now, we need to focus on the fact that missionaries think their theology NEEDS to be preached to everyone on planet Earth.

Why would they feel the need to do something like that? Because missionaries have a superiority complex. They think Christianity is superior and better in every way compared to other pagan traditions. In fact, Christianity has been on a crusade against paganism and local folk traditions since its inception.

You can find examples of Christians hating paganism in your life if you want to. Just try to suggest to any Christian apologists that some Christian tradition or culture is borrowed from or inspired by any pagan tradition and see them become defensive instantly. They hate paganism so much that they can’t bear the idea of such suggestions.

The very concept of labelling someone as a pagan or outsider is problematic. This is where it all starts.

At least Jewish people kept it to themselves. Christians expanded the idea to the whole world, starting from the Roman Empire.

I am not saying significant differences don’t exist between different ideologies outside of Christianity. Ancient pagan cultures were also competitive. Conflict and disagreements are inevitable. Probably when one empire used to capture another empire, they also used to view it as a defeat of the gods of the captured empire. Culture and traditions do evolve. Change is the only constant. Even today, there are different pagan ideologies that are not easy to reconcile with each other.

What I am saying is that in the case of evangelism, there is a subtle difference. Evangelism is not mere disagreement. Have you ever watched an academic discussion of any two scientists discussing any topic on which they don’t agree? It’s true that both of them think that their side of the theory is correct and that they have good reasons to believe the given theory. But evangelism is not like that. It’s not like two scientists discussing whether string or loop quantum gravity theory is correct. Both scientists may have some good points to state. There is a difference between disagreement and stubbornness.

The very first assumption of evangelism is that gospels are ‘The good news’. You are coming to win over and renew opposite traditions because you think it is Satan’s stronghold. You are not coming to discuss and discover things that both parties can offer. Why would you when you think you have a divinely authoritative superior view?

From the beginning itself, the idea of evangelism is problematic. Honestly, the realization of this was one of the reasons I am no longer anti-theist.

Genuine interaction and discussions happen when there is mutual respect and understanding. Let’s take the example of North Sentinel Island only.

There are a few successful attempts to communicate with the locals. An anthropologist took more than 2 decades to gain the trust of the Sentinelese. The photo below is evidence of that:

They are not hostile people. They warn; they don’t kill people, including outsiders. They don’t raid their neighbours. They only say, ‘leave us alone.’ They make it amply clear that outsiders are not welcome in their habitat. One needs to understand that language ~ TN Pandit.

Another anthropologist named Madhumala Chattopadhyay also made friendly interactions with the Sentinelese during the 90s.

Never ever in my six years of doing research along with the tribes of Andamans did any man ever misbehave with me. The tribes might be primitive in their technological achievements, but socially they are far ahead of us ~ Madhumala Chattopadhyay.

Using the Indian constitution, sometimes it is argued that freedom to practice any religious tenet should be available to everyone. Evangelism is a core idea of Christianity, and hence Christians have the freedom to practice that according to this argument.

I don’t have a major in law, but from what I have read, that is simply not true. Article 25 of the constitution of India provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, but…

It’s not an absolute right, and there are conditions provided. Your practice of religion should not affect society negatively.

Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion 25(1)

The Indian constitution does provide freedom of declaration, practice, and promotion of all religions, but it does not provide freedom for what missionaries have in their mind.

As I said, there is a subtle difference. Let’s take the example of a movie marketing campaign. A studio is free to show ads and have promotional events wherever it is appropriate. They are not free to systematically hunt down every individual and sell the tickets manipulatively. There is a difference between an advertisement and a manhunt. That’s the difference between promotion and evangelism. So, even legally, at least in India, this is not the right thing to do, but let’s not go into a legal rabbit hole.

I remember a short conversation I had with a fellow Christian medium writer in the article he wrote.

He was discussing how missionaries in India are having difficulty doing the mission work. It’s no secret that the Hindu right in India are not fond of either Christian or Islamic influence in India. I tried to explain my viewpoint as follows:

In reply, He wrote the following comment:

He seems to think that Western culture is deteriorating, which also gets associated with Christianity. He thinks evangelism is opposed in India because of this association. He was probably trying to shift the blame to the Western left. He thinks if Western culture had a good impression that would solve the problem. That is probably one reason evangelism is opposed by the Hindu right, but that’s not the only reason. That’s not even the main reason. The issue is not the bad impression but the evangelism itself.

According to them, if some form of theism is true, then evangelism simply disrespects other equally valid traditions and cultures.

2. It can potentially wipe out many valuable philosophies and ideas.

What can a bunch of forest dwellers can teach us that we already don’t know?

When thinking about the Sentinelese, it is very easy to think we are at least better than them. That’s possibly true for some aspects, but on the other side, think about it for a moment. A small group of humans survived on an island for thousands of years. A small alien world in our Earth itself. You can’t just dismiss their culture as primitive.

If this is true for them, imagine what other world cultures can teach us. If left unchallenged, evangelism would eventually wipe out all such knowledge and ideas. There were other competing Christian traditions among the proto-orthodox Christian traditions in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Today, we have very little material on them. The traditions don’t exist anymore. Maybe there was something interesting to learn from those traditions. We possibly lost some useful knowledge in the process of canonization.

That was even before Christianity became a dominant power. Once Christianity came into power, that was a different story in itself.

In the modern world, let me take the example of Hinduism. Hinduism is probably the vastest pool of ancient knowledge and tradition available today. You can’t read it all even in your lifetime. It’s not limited to theology. It has material on virtually every aspect of personal, social, and spiritual life.

I am just telling you the amount of knowledge available. I am not promoting Hinduism. I am also not saying to follow it as a dogma, but we still read ancient Greek philosophy. You can’t just say such a large pool of knowledge would be useless.

Evangelism is potentially dangerous for any pagan knowledge pool.

3. It’s manipulative and rooted in sales techniques.

A good salesman can manipulate you into buying even things you don’t necessarily require. Christianity is rooted in the ultimate sales technique: your so-called salvation. Why do you think missionaries have a strong urge to spread the gospel message? Their answer is “out of love.”

They think it’s the absolute right thing to do, but where is this coming from? Why do they think that Christian Theology is an important message worth taking risks such as going on North Sentinel Island? If it’s not crucial in the way missionaries think, then the whole idea of evangelism is pointless.

A point to note here, I am not calling Christian theology pointless but the idea of evangelism. Christian theology can be important and useful without the idea of evangelism.

Christian apologists spend hours defending this view of why the Christian message is essential to spread. Failing to do so would make the whole practice of evangelism pointless. Let’s imagine there is this wise father who has two sons. Elder son wants to become a bodybuilder, so the father advises him to take on a high-protein diet with lots of carbs and fats and balance that with appropriate exercise. The younger son doesn’t have such aspirations, so he needs relatively less protein to be healthy. Now imagine if diet actually worked for the elder son and he won in some competition.

Now imagine if this son goes to his brother and forces him to take on a high protein diet as he did so that his brother also becomes healthy like him. Would that be the right thing to do? A diet depends on the individual body. The younger son already has a diet that is keeping him healthy, provided by the father. Elder son’s heart may be in the right place, but his actions are not. That’s precisely what evangelism is. Even if their heart is in the right place, their actions are not.

What if there is no “one size fits all” in spirituality? Also, the need for salvation is a Christian concept. This concept fails on its own. If there is an almighty God, why will humanity be in need of salvation in the first place?

Assuming theistic God is true, I don’t see why an almighty god would be so incapable of forming relationships in accordance with each individual human. Practically every human will be different based on demographics, geographical location, level of knowledge, etc. I don’t know why an almighty God would require equality in the practice of a personal relationship with God. That would be unfair on many levels. After all, a relationship with God is the ultimate message of Christianity.

And no, this doesn’t mean I am professing relative truth. There is still objective truth. Like in my example, if one of the brothers starts eating junk food continuously, it will harm his health objectively. I think an ideal religion should be inclusive and pluralist, not exclusive, and that doesn’t mean we will not have objective truth.

This should be the case conversely also. Why should a genuinely God-seeking individual not be able to form a relationship with God if that’s what God actively wants? That’s the problem of divine hiddenness, but let’s not go into that for the purpose of this article.

The main takeaway is that even if we assume theism is true, the Christian idea of divine atonement only through Christ doesn’t make any sense. There are better theistic ideas available.

The exclusivity of Christianity, the theology of original sin, the theology of atonement with only the death of Christ; if all of this is not properly justified, then evangelism is pointless. And if you are doing it without proper justification, then you are no different from kings, emporers, and colonizers who captured and enslaved foreign lands. The difference is that it’s not aggressively physical but passively cultural, but it’s the same thing. You would be similar to Thanos, who thinks one solution will work for everyone. Talking about Thanos, let’s go to our next point because Thanos was self-righteous.

4. It’s self-righteous and fueled by a martyr complex.

If you read the diaries of John Allen Chua, you may find it noble. He seems selfless. That’s all true, but being selfless for a self-righteous cause is not actually being selfless. I don’t mean any disrespect to Chua by giving this example, but by this logic, even Thanos was selfless. As I said before, there is a subtle difference between promotion and evangelism. In the same way, there is a difference between being critical and being self-righteous. In the practical world, usually, it is the combination of the two, but I find evangelism by its nature self-righteous, and I have justified that in my previous points. Evangelism begins with the assumption that your set of beliefs is divinely authoritative and absolutely true. Remember the first words Chau said to the Sentinelese, “My name is John. I love you and Jesus loves you. Jesus Christ gave me the authority to come to you.” You can’t get more self-righteous than that.

This leads to my next point. Again, I don’t mean to promote any atrocities or disrespect the sufferings of any individual, but evangelist behaviors often leads to conflict. At times this causes losses on either side. This creates a martyr complex among missionaries. This is a sensitive topic, but it’s an unhealthy thing to have for a religious cause.

Conclusion

Don’t get me wrong. I am not against freedom of religious expression. I know the importance of freedom to declare belief or, in my case, non-belief. I wish I could openly declare my non-belief among my family members freely with them, and they could mutually understand my decision. I am not against voluntary conversion of belief. Even I did the voluntary conversion of my belief, but not because atheists knocked on my door.

As an atheist, I don’t even have a horse in the race. I oppose evangelism not because I support Hindutva but because I simply find it wrong.

In summary, evangelism is: